ii^- 


m 


William  H.  ,j3^een 


PentateuchfAnalyFls 


\ 


\ 


i 


BSI245 
.4679 


^^ 


^OF  mNCt; 


A 


MAY   5   1959 


Logical  st^ 


%^ 


<^-Z- 


f 


*     APR  18  1911    -1 


-•ns 


ESSAYS 


ON 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM 


■..;a 


BY 


VARIOUS  WRITERS. 

No.  4. 
PENTATEUCH     ANALYSIS 

BY 

PROFESSOR  WILLIAM    H   GREEN.  D.D. 


NEW  YORK  : 
FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 
18  A  20  AsToR  Place, 
1888, 


Entered  accordlug  to  Act  of  Congress,  in    the  yeaj  1887,    by 

¥VKS.  Sc  WMmMJLS, 

In  the  OiBce  of  the  I^hrarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  T).  C 


PRESS  OF 

FUNK  &   WAGNALLS. 
18  and  20  Astor  Place, 

KEW  YORK 


SUMMARY. 

The  investigation  necessarily  minute.  Critical 
symbols.  The  burden  of  proof  on  the  critics.  A 
sense  not  to  be  imposed  on  isolated  paragraphs  at 
variance  with  their  context.  Evasions  by  means 
of  the  Redactor  and  by  minute  subdivisions  of 
the  text. 

The  portion  to  be  discussed.  Section  first. 
Exodus  3  and  6 :  2ff.  not  duplicate  narratives 
of  the  same  event.  The  argument  thence  drawn 
for  the  divisive  hypothesis  illusive.  Gaps  and 
omissions  in  P's  narrative.  The  argument  from 
diction.     Perplexity  in  separating  J  and  E. 

Section  second.  Alleged  criteria.  The  resulting 
division.  Its  bearing  on  the  historical  truth  of  the 
events.  The  criteria  fallacious.  Various  length 
of  the  accounts  of  the  plagues.  Diction.  The 
plague  of  blood.  Progress  not  intermittent  when 
the  true  scheme  of  the  plagues  is  seen.  The  crit- 
ical hypothesis  beset  by  insuperable  difficulties. 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  103 


PENTATEUCHAL  ANALYSIS. 

In  the  limited  space  allowed  in  these  essays  it 
is  impossible  to  undertake  the  full  discussion  of 
the  critical  division  of  the  Pentateuch  in  all  its 
length  and  breadth,  to  which  such  a  multitude  of 
volumes  has  been  devoted,  and  upon  which  so 
many  learned  dissertations  have  been  written.  A 
treatment  of  this  subject  in  general  terms  would 
be  of  no  practical  benefit.  Critical  partition  is 
professedly  based  on  the  minute  examination  of 
paragraphs,  words  and  phrases,  and  cannot  be  met 
by  generalities,  but  only  by  a  similarly  minute  in- 
vestigation, in  which  the  arguments  adduced  in 
its  favour  can  be  rebutted  in  detail  and  the  oppos- 
ing considerations,  which  show  it  to  be  unreason- 
able or  impracticable,  can  likewise  be  exhibited. 
Such  an  investigation  must  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  be  tedious,  and  task  the  patience  of  the 
reader.  But  it  is  inevitable,  if  effective  work  is  to 
be  done,  or  any  intelligent  comprehension  of  the 
subject  is  to  be  gained ;  for  the  region  in  which 
the  discussion  moves  is  the  minutiae  of  diction, 
style,  conception  and  the  connection  of  paragraphs 
and  sentences,  which  are  only  redeemed  from  their 
apparently  petty  character  by  the  momentous  con- 
sequences deduced  from  them  or  dependent  on 
them.  The  work  of  the  critic  is  the  cross-examin- 
ation of  witnesses,  which  busies  itself  with  trivial 
circumstances  aside  from  the  leading  features  of 


104  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  testimony.  But  it  is  precisely  by  its  coherence 
in  these  minor  and  incidental  matters,  or  by  the 
lack  of  it,  that  its  credibility  and  value  on  the 
whole  are  to  be  tested.  We  do  not  object  to  the 
searching  character  of  this  critical  investigation. 
Our  only  demand  is  that  it  should  be  fairly  and 
honestly  conducted. 

The  Pentateuch,  which  to  ordinary  readers 
seems  to  be  one  continuous  production,  resolves 
itself  upon  close  examination,  we  are  told,  into 
three  or  four  treatises  or  documents  giving  every 
indication  of  distinct  authorship,  which  must  in 
the  first  instance  have  existed  separately,  but  have 
been  subsequently  woven  together.  These  are 
technically  denoted  by  the  symbols  E  (Elohist),  J 
(Jahvist),  D  (Deuteronomist),  P  (Priestly  Narrator). 
J  and  E  were  first  combined  by  a  Redactor  (Rj), 
and  the  united  work  JE,  after  circulating  for  some 
time,  was  further  enlarged  by  other  Redactors, 
Rd  and  Rp,  who  added  Deuteronomy  and  the 
Priestly  Document.  And  thus  by  successive  steps 
the  work  reached  its  present  compass. 

An  obvious  remark  at  the  outset  is  that  the  ex- 
istence of  these  documents  and  redactors  is  purely 
a  matter  of  critical  discovery.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  their  existence  and  no  pretence  of  any 
apart  from  the  critical  tests  which  have  deter- 
mined the  analysis.  All  tradition  and  all  histor- 
ical testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  against  them.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  whol- 
ly upon  the  critics.  And  this  proof  should  be 
clear  and  convincing  in  proportion  to  the  gravity 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  105 

and   the    revolutionary   character   of   the   conse- 
quences which  it  'is  proposed  to  base  upon  it. 

It  is  further  obvious  that  the  composite  charac- 
ter of  the  Pentateuch,  supposing  this  were  estab- 
lished, would  not  justify  the  critics  in  attributing 
a  different  sense  to  the  documents  in  their  origi- 
nal form  from  that  which  the  passages  extracted 
from  them  are  capable  of  having  in  their  present 
connection,  or   in   assuming   a   conflict   between 
them  which  does  not  exist  as  they  now  stand. 
The  critics  have  no  right  upon  their  own  princi- 
ples to  impeach  needlessly  and  arbitrarily  the  in- 
tegrity and  capacity  of  the  Redactors.     The  Re- 
dactors by  the  hypothesis  had  the  documents  be- 
fore them  separate  and  complete,  with  every  op- 
portunity to  ascertain  their  true  meaning ;  and  it 
ought  not  to  be  assumed  without  clear  proof  that 
this  has  been  obscured  or  falsified.  Modern  critics, 
who  possess  only  the  commingled  and  dislocated 
fragments  that  have  been  preserved  to  us,  are  far 
more   likely  to  be  mistaken.     If  new  meanings 
may  be  imposed  upon  paragraphs  or  sentences  in- 
compatible with  their  present  context ;  if  variance 
may  be  created  by  expunging  explanatory  or  har- 
monizing clauses ;  if  discrepancy  may  be  inferred 
from  a  silence  which  is  itself  produced  by  first  re- 
moving the  very  statements  that  are  desiderated 
from  the  connection  ;  if  what  are  narrated  as  dis- 
tinct events  may  be  converted  into  irreconcileable 
accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  the  most  closely 
connected  composition  can  be  rent  asunder  into 
discordant    fragments.      Such   methods  are  sub- 


106  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

versive  of  all  just  interpretation.  The  operator 
imposes  his  own  ideas  upon  the  text  before  him 
and  draws  conclusions  which  have  no  warrant  but 
in  the  flights  of  his  own  fancy. 

It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  insertions, 
omissions  and  modifications  attributed  to  the  Re- 
dactors are  merely  ingenious  methods  of  evading 
or  explaining  away  phenomena  at  variance  with 
the  proper  requirements  of  the  hypothesis.  Wher- 
ever it  is  assumed  that  the  Redactor  has  altered 
the  characteristic  words  or  phrases  of  his  sources, 
has  modified  their  language  or  ideas  or  inserted 
expressions  and  views  of  his  own,  the  meaning 
simply  is  that  the  facts  do  not  correspond  with 
the  hypothesis.  The  proof  relied  upon  to  estab- 
lish the  existence  of  these  otherwise  unknown 
documents  is  that  they  are  uniformly  character- 
ized by  a  certain  diction,  style  and  mode  of 
thought.  But  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  always  so 
characterized,  they  must  have  been  changed  by 
the  Redactors.  This  is  building  the  hypothesis 
upon  the  hypothesis  and  supporting  assumption 
by  assumption.  It  is  plain  that  every  alleged  in- 
terference of  the  Redactors  weakens  by  so  much 
the  evidence  on  which  the  hypothesis  itself  re- 
poses. 

Another  evasive  expedient  which  naturally  cre- 
ates distrust  in  critical  processes  as  they  are  at 
present  conducted,  is  the  minute  subdivision  to 
which  the  Redactors  are  at  times  assumed  to  have 
resorted  in  piecing  together  their  sources.  It 
might  with  a  show  of  reason  be  claimed  that  a 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  107 

judgment  can  be  formed  of  the  authorship  of  con- 
siderable paragraphs  and  sections  from  their  dic- 
tion and  style.  But  that  individual  sentences  and 
clauses  can  be  referred  with  any  certainty  to  their 
proper  authors,  or  that  a  sensible  compiler  would 
have  constructed  his  paragraphs  like  a  piece  of 
mosaic  from  bits  and  scraps  culled  alternately 
from  different  documents,  or  that  any  semblance 
of  continuity  could  be  given  to  paragraphs  so 
framed,  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose.  This  simply 
amounts  to  a  confession  that  the  phenomena  can- 
not be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  hypothesis 
by  any  less  violent  procedure.  What  the  critics 
reckon  to  be  criteria  of  distinct  writers  are  found 
closely  conjoined  in  sections  which  have  every  ap- 
pearance of  proceeding  from  the  same  pen,  but 
which  under  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis 
must  be  torn  to  shreds. 

The  present  discussion  will  be  limited  to  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  Exodus,  which  together 
with  chapters  12,  13,  whose  unity  has  been  suf. 
ficiently  treated  elsewhere,*  cover  the  entire  abode 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt.  This  is  a  por- 
tion quite  long  enough  to  test  the  hypothesis,  and 
to  exhibit  its  principles  and  methods,  while  it  is  as 
much  as  can  be  brought  under  review  in  the  space 
at  our  command.  And  it  is  besides  especially  suit- 
ed to  our  purpose  ;  for  the  assumption  of  preexist- 
ing documents  in  Genesis  does  not  stand  in  such 
obvious  conflict  with  Mosaic  authorship  as  the  ex- 
tension of  this  hypothesis  into  the  books  that  follow. 

*  The  Hebrew  Feasts,  ch.  iii.  and  iv. 


108  PENTATErCHAL  CRITICISM. 

The  section  proposed  for  consideration  may  be 
divided  into  two  parts:  i.  Chapter  1-7:7,  the 
oppression  of  Israel  in  Egypt  and  the  preparation 
of  Moses  to  be  a  deHverer;  2.  7:  8-1 1 :  10,  the 
plagues  by  which  Pharaoh's  obstinacy  was  broken 
and  Israel  released.  In  the  first  part  the  critics 
assign  to  P  i  :i-7,  13,  14  (except  some  words  in 
verses  7,  14,  and  perhaps  verse  6),  2:  23^-25,  6:  2- 
7:  7. 

It  is  alleged  that  chapter  3  and  6 :  2ff.  are  paral- 
lel accounts  of  the  same  transaction.  Everything 
is  duplicated.  God  twice  reveals  to  Moses  his 
name  Jehovah  (3:13-15,  6:2,3),  ^^^  twice  an- 
nounces to  him  his  purpose  to  deliver  Israel  and 
bring  them  to  Canaan  by  his  instrumentality  (3:7- 
10,  6:6-8,  11),  and  upon  Moses'  pleading  unfitness 
Aaron  is  twice  associated  with  him  (4:  10-16,  6: 
30-7  :  2).  The  critical  hypothesis,  it  is  said,  is  here 
explicitly  justified.  These  accounts  must  be  from 
two  different  writers,  6 :  2ff.  from  P,  and  chapter  3 
from  E.  This  being  in  the  intent  of  each  writer 
according  to  the  critics  the  first  communication 
of  the  name  Jehovah,  neither  of  them  could  .have 
employed  this  name  in  the  antecedent  portion  of 
his  narrative.  All  preceding  passages  that  con- 
tain the  name  Jehovah,  must  accordingly  be  by  a 
third  writer,  J,  who  had  a  different  view  of  its  ori- 
gin. A  firm  basis,  it  is  contended,  is  thus  laid  for 
tracing  the  record  to  three  distinct  sources. 

But  this  is  foisting  a  meaning  upon  these  pas- 
sages which  they  plainly  will  not  bear.  It  is  in- 
consistent, I.  with  the  repeated  occurrence  of  the 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  109 

name  Jehovah  in  the  antecedent  history,  showing 
that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form,  whether  Moses,  or  if  the  critics  please,  the 
three  Redactors  (Rj,  Rd  and  Rp),  did  not  so  under- 
stand them.    2.  With  chapter  3  itself.    If  the  author 
meant  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  first  revealed  in 
3:14,    15   and   systematically   abstained   for  that 
reason  from  using  it  before,  he  could  not  use  it  as 
he  does  in  verses  2,  4,  7.     The  critics  confess  this 
and  expunge  Jehovah  from  these  verses  as  an  in- 
sertion by  R,  thus  reconstructing  the  text  in  ac- 
cordance with  their  hypothesis.     And  how  could 
a  name  previously  unheard  of  assure  the  children 
of  Israel  that  Moses  had  really  been  commissioned 
by  the  God  of  their  fathers  (3  :  13,  15)?     3.  With 
the  real  meaning  of  6 :  2ff.,  which  is  not  that  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob  had  never  heard  the  word 
Jehovah,  but  that  they  had  had  no  such  experience 
of  what  the  name  involved  as  was  now  to  be 
granted  to  their  descendants.    God  is  known  by  his 
name  Jehovah  not  by  the  utterance  of  the  word 
but  by  an  experience  of  what  it  denotes.    It  is  so 
uniformly  throughout  the  Scriptures,  ^.^.,Isa.  52:6. 
Jer.  9:24,  16:21,  Ezek.  39:6,  7.     God's  not  being 
known  by  the  patriarchs  by  his  name  Jehovah  is 
in  evident  contrast  with  the  repeated  declarations 
that  Israel  {6\j,  10:2),  the  Egyptians  (7:5,  14:4, 
18),  and  Pharaoh  (7:  17,  8:  10,  22,  9:  14,  29,  comp. 
5 : 2),  should  know  that  he  was  Jehovah. 

The  support  which  the  critics  would  draw  for 
their  hypothesis  from  Ex.  iii.  and  vi.:  2,  etc.,  thus 
collapses  entirely.     As  these  passages  do  not  de- 


110  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

clare  the  occasion  of  the  first  employment  of  the 
name  Jehovah,  there  is  no  propriety  in  regarding 
them  as  distinct  versions  of  the  same  event,  and 
thus  tracing  them  to  separate  writers  ;  nor  in  hold- 
ing that  they  present  a  different  view  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  name  Jehovah  from  those  sections  of 
Genesis  which  employ  it  from  the  earliest  periods, 
and  are  in  consequence  referred  to  a  third  writer. 

That  chapter  iii.  and  chapter  vi.  relate  different 
events  is  as  plain  as  the  history  can  make  it.  One 
took  place  at  Horeb,  the  other  in  Egypt.  They 
occurred  at  different  times  and  at  distinct  stages 
in  God's  revelation  to  Moses;  one  when  Moses 
was  first  commissioned,  the  other  after  he  had,  in 
pursuance  of  his  commission,  made  a  demand  upon 
Pharaoh  on  the  people's  behalf  which  only  re- 
sulted in  increasing  their  burdens.  That  under 
these  circumstances  the  Lord  should  renew  his 
former  assurances  to  Moses  with  increased  empha- 
sis, that  the  people  should  lose  the  faith  (6 : 9) 
which  they  had  before  (4:31),  that  Moses,  who 
had  distrusted  his  own  qualifications  at  the  begin- 
ning (4:10),  should  now  be  hopeless  of  success 
with  Pharaoh  (6:12),  and  that  Aaron,  who  had 
been  appointed  to  help  him  with  the  people 
(4:  16),  should  now  be  made  his  assistant  before 
the  king  (7:1,  2),  is  perfectly  natural  and  suggests 
no  suspicion  that  the  story  is  repeating  itself. 

The  narrative  assigned  to  P  is  halting  at  every 
point  from  the  want  of  those  connecting  or  ex- 
planatory parts  which  have  been  sundered  from 
it.     The  critics  violate  their  own  maxim  that  rep- 


Pentateu.chal  Analysis.  Ill 

etitions  give  evidence  of  distinct  writers  by  con- 
fessing, that  the  enumeration  of   Jacob's  family 
(Ex.  1 :  1-5)  can  only  be  an  abridgment  by  P  of 
his  own  fuller  statement  Gen.  46 :  8-27  ;  and  their 
multiplication  (Ex.  i  :  7)  had  already  been  stated 
by  him  in  almost  identical  terms  (Gen.  47 :  27). 
From  this  he  leaps  quite  unaccountably  to  their 
oppression  by  the  Egyptians  (verses  13,  14),  who 
had  so  hospitably  received  them.     This  needs  for 
its  explanation  the  omitted  verses  8-12,  in  which 
moreover  *' more  and  mightier"  CIHJ?"!  21  (verse 
9)  is  a  plain  verbal  allusion  to  "  multiplied  and 
waxed  exceeding  mighty"  ''DlJy^l  HTI  (verse  7),  as 
is  also  ''multiply"  (verses  10,  12),  '' multiplied  and 
waxed  very  mighty  "  (verse  20).     In  fact  verse  7 
supplies  the  keynote  of   all   that  follows  in  the 
chapter,  binding  the  whole  indissolubly  together. 
Verse  9  severed  from  it  is  quite  unexplained  in  a 
writer  who  had  spoken  of  the  descent  of  Jacob's 
family  into  Egypt,  but  had  said  nothing  of  the 
great  increase  of  his  descendants.    Verse  6,  ''  And 
Joseph  died,"  etc.,  plainly  prepares  the  way  for 
verse  8,  the  "  new  king  which  knew  not  Joseph." 
The  **  mortar  and  brick"  (verse  14)  both  allude  to 
the  building  of  treasure  cities  (verse  1 1),  and  to  the 
brickmaking  of  5  :  7,  etc.,  which  is  associated  with 
''burdens"  (5  14,  5),  as  in  i  :  11,  14.     These  obvi- 
ous references  by  one   writer  to   paragraphs  as- 
signed to  another  are  evaded  by  various  feats  of 
critical  surgery  which  have  no  justification  but  the 
necessity  created  by  the  hypothesis. 

From  the  account  of  Egyptian  oppression  (i  : 


113  Pentateuch AL  Criticism. 

13,  14)  whose  meagre  baldness  is  due  to  its  hav- 
ing been  rent  from  its  proper  place  in  the  series 
of  inflictions  of  growing  severity  (verses  1 1-22), 
P  springs  at  once  to  2:23<5-25  with  its  mention  of 
a  covenant  with  Isaac,  although  none  such  is  re- 
corded except  by  J  (Gen.  26  : 2-5,  24) ;  and  thence 
to  6:  2,  etc.,  where  God  suddenly  speaks  to  Moses 
and  shortly  after  (verse  13),  to  Moses  and  Aaron, 
as  if  they  were  well-known  personages,  though 
there  had  been  no  previous  mention  of  their  ex- 
istence. This  incongruity,  created  by  the  removal 
of  the  very  account  (chapter  2,  etc.,)  here  presup- 
posed, gives  rise  to  new  critical  assumptions. 
Kuenen  fancies  that  P  had  spoken  before  of 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  some  passage  which  has  not 
been  preserved.  Kayser  gets  rid  of  the  allusion 
to  Aaron  by  referring  6: 13-30  to  the  Redactor. 
Dillmann  declines  to  do  this,  but  with  a  like  view 
of  finding  the  first  mention  of  Aaron  in  7:1  he 
transposes  6:30-7:5  before  6: 13  and  places  7:6 
immediately  after  it.  Wellhausen  undertakes  to 
supply  the  missing  mention  of  Moses  and  Aaron 
by  the  conjecture  that  the  account  of  their  ances- 
try (6:i6ff.)  may  originally  have  preceded  6:2, 
though  the  record  of  Aaron's  w^ife  and  children 
(verse  23,  etc.)  is  in  his  judgment  inappropriate 
and  a  later  addition.  But  the  appositeness  of  the 
entire  genealogy,  every  clause  of  which  is  in  anal- 
ogy with  those  previously  given,  appears  from  the 
fact  that  it  not  only  introduces  Aaron  and  Moses, 
who  are  just  entering  upon  the  momentous  task 
assigned  them,  but  likewise  Korah,  Nadab,  Abihu, 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  113 

Eleazar,  Ithamar  and  Phinehas,  who  are  to  figure 
in  the  subsequent  history.  Noldeke  confesses  the 
suitableness  of  the  table  in  general,  but  stumbles 
at  the  sons  of  Reuben  and  Simeon  (verses  14,  15) 
as  here  uncalled  for,  and  in  his  opinion  an  inter- 
polation. Jiilicher  very  properly  replies  that  an 
interpolator  would  not  have  stopped  with  insert- 
ing these  two  names  only,  when  there  Avas  equal 
reason  for  adding  all  the  rest  of  Jacob's  sons.  In 
fact  there  is  a  suitableness  in  verses  14,  15  stand- 
ing where  they  do  to  indicate  Levi's  place  as  the 
third  in  age  in  his  father's  family.  Jiilicher  pro- 
poses to  relieve  the  suddenness  of  the  mention  of 
Moses  in  6:2  by  transposing  before  it  the  entire 
genealogy  with  6:13  as  its  title,  which  will  thus 
connect  directly  with  2:25;  although  this  would 
place  '^  Jehovah"  in  6:13  prior  to  what  he  con- 
siders the  first  revelation  of  this  name  in  6:2,  3. 
But  after  all  this  self-imposed  trouble  and  these 
fruitless  conjectures  of  the  critics,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  why  the  reasons,  be  what  they  may,  which  led 
the  imaginary  Redactor  to  give  to  this  whole  pas- 
sage its  present  position,  may  not  have  been 
equally  influential  with  the  original  writer.  This 
busy  tinkering  betokens  merely  a  weak  spot,  which 
needs  in  some  way  to  be  covered  up. 

It  is  urged  that  6:2ff.  would  connect  well  with 
2:23-25,  to  which  its  language  contains  manifest 
allusions — "heard  the  groaning,"  "children  of  Is- 
rael," "remembered  my  covenant,"  "bondage," 
"Abraham,  I^aac  and  Jacob."  But  each  of  these 
passages  connects  perfectly  with  its  present  con-. 


114  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

text.  And  while  there  is  an  obvious  and  designed 
relationship  between  them,  they  need  not  on  that 
account  have  been  contiguous.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  2 :  23-25  is  bound 
in  the  closest  manner  to  the  immediately  follow- 
ing chapter,  which  must  have  proceeded  from  the 
same  pen,  and  cannot  possibly  have  been  from  a 
different  writer  and  independently  conceived,  as 
the  critics  would  have  us  suppose.  God's  appear- 
ance to  Moses  (chapter  3)  and  the  message  which 
-he  gives  him  flow  directly  from  2:23-25,  which 
shapes  the  expressions  used,  e.  g.^  the  motive 
drawn  from  God's  relation  to  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob  (3:6,  15),  God  saw,  heard  and  knew  (3:7), 
(precisely  as  2 :  24,  25  where  A.  V.  "  looked  upon  " 
is  in  Heb.  "saw,"  and  *'had  respect  unto"  is  in 
Heb.  "knew"),  the  cry  (npyu,  2:23  puT)  of  the 
children  of  Israel  came  unto  God  (3:7,  9). 

In  6:6-8  the  criteria  of  the  different  writers  are 
sadly  mixed;  "bondage,"  "stretched  out  arm," 
"judgments,"  which  belong  to  P  are  combined 
with  "  burdens,"  "  rid,"  "  bring  into  the  land,"  and 
God's  swearing  to  give  the  land,  of  which  lifting 
the  hand  is  the  significant  gesture,  elsewhere  at- 
tributed to  J  or  E.  Among  the  phrases  counted 
as  P's  are  "of  uncircumcised  lips"  (6:12,  30), 
which  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  can  therefore  be 
no  criterion  of  style;  groaning  (2:24,  6:5),  and 
nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch ;  "  Pharaoh  king 
of  Egypt"  (6:  11,  13,  27,  29),  which  is  also  found 
(Gen.  41 : 46)  in  JE  ;  God  remembering  (6 :  5),  but 
also  (Gen.  30:  22,  Ex.  32  :  13)  in  JE  ;  "  wonders  " 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  115 

(7:3),  but  also  (4:21)  in  JE;  **  armies"  or  hosts 
(6:26,  7:4),  but  also  (Gen.  21 :  22,  32,  26  :  26)  in 
JE  ;  and  though  it  does  not  chance  to  be  applied 
to  Israel,  other  expressions  are  used  suggesting 
the  same  conception  ;  "  judgments  "  {6:6,  7 : 4), 
and  but  twice  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  "bring 
forth  my  people,  the  children  of  Israel  "  (7 : 4),  as 
3: 10  E. 

But  the  most  striking  words  and  phrases  of  this 
passage  are  drawn  from  Gen.  17:  i,  7,  8,  which  it 
reproduces  almost  completely,  "  appeared  to  Abra- 
ham," "  God  Almighty,"  "  establish  my  covenant," 
"  give  the  land  of  Canaan,"  "  land  of  their  pilgrim- 
age," "  I  will  be  to  you  a  God."  And  in  almost 
every  instance  in  which  these  same  expressions 
are  found  elsewhere,  they  are  directly  and  obvi- 
ously traceable  to  this  one  source.  They  cannot 
properly  be  urged,  therefore,  as  characteristics  of 
style.  They  simply  show  familiarity  with  the  pas- 
sage upon  which  they  are  all  alike  based.  The 
critics  nevertheless  use  them  as  criteria ;  and  every 
passage  that  contains  them  is  for  that  reason, 
wherever  it  is  at  all  practicable,  assigned  to  P. 
And  yet  "  God  Almighty  "  is  confessedly  found  in 
J  (Gen.  43: 14),  and  "Almighty"  in  Gen.  49:25. 
The  phrase  "  establish  a  covenant "  suggests  its 
perpetuity.  It  is  accordingly  used  only  of  God's 
covenants  and  chiefly  of  those  with  Noah  and 
Abraham,  when  prominence  was  to  be  given  to 
the  idea  of  their  permanence.  The  alternate 
phrase  attributed  to  J,  "  make  (Heb.  cut)  a  cove- 
nant," is  equally  applicable  to  those  of  men,  and 


116  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

is  used  of  a  divine  covenant  only  when  the 
thought  is  directed  to  its  ratification,  especially  if 
that  was  solemnized,  as  in  Gen.  15 :  18,  Ex.  24:8, 
by  sacrificial  rites.  Comp.  Ps.  50:5.  ''Land  of 
Canaan,"  according  to  Kayser,  occurs  in  J  E  no  less 
than  fifteen  times  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  *'  Pil- 
grimage "  (or  wherein  he  was  a  stranger)  is  found 
six  times  in  Genesis,  and  is  in  every  instance  re- 
ferred to  P.  *'  I  will  be  to  you  a  God  '*  is  here 
associated  with  a  phrase,  *'  I  will  take  you  to  me 
for  a  people,"  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  P. 

The  result  so  far  as  concerns  the  passages  as- 
signed to  P  is  this :  The  critics  sunder  a  few  verses 
from  their  present  connection  in  which  they  fit 
perfectly  well,  and  omitting  the  intervening  sec- 
tions, they  claim  that  these  verses  were  originally 
continuous.  But  the  omissions  leave  gaps  unfilled 
and  confuse  events  shown  to  be  distinct  by  re- 
corded differences  of  place  and  circumstances, 
needlessly  assuming  discrepancies  which  are 
wholly  created  by  these  critical  processes,  and 
imputing  incapacity  or  fraud  to  the  Redactor  or 
the  author  of  the  book  in  its  present  form.  And 
that  the  characteristic  diction  which  is  the  prin- 
cipal plea  urged  for  this  critical  dissection  is  not 
such  as  to  warrant  it,  appears  from  the  occasional 
intermingling  of  the  criteria  of  different  docu- 
ments, from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  alleged  cri- 
teria are  of  so  rare  occurrence  as  to  be  no  evi- 
dence of  style ;  that  others  exhibit  conformity  to 
sundry  other  paragraphs  simply  because  all  are 
alike  drawn  from  one  fundamental  passage ;  and 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  117 

others  still  are  not  peculiar  to  P,  but  found  in 
what  is  ascribed  to  J  or  E  as  well. 

After  removing  P's  share  of  1 : 1-7:7,  the  critics 
are  not  a  little  perplexed  in  their  attempt  to  par- 
cel the  remainder  between  J  and  E."*^  Kayser 
thinks  it  impossible  to  disentangle  the  two  ac- 
counts without  breaking  the  connection.  Kuenen 
confesses  that  "  here  we  cannot  separate  two  dis- 
tinct documents  and  assign  its  share  to  each  with 
confidence.  The  most  we  can  hope  for  is  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  is  E  or  J  that  lies  at  the  basis  of 
the  narrative ;  and  sometimes  even  this  is  doubt- 
ful." Wellhausen  gives  to  J  i :  8-10  because  of  its 
resemblance  to  Gen.  1 1 : 6,  7,  thus  depriving  the 
oppression  i :  1 1,  12  in  E  of  its  motive  ;  also  verses 
20b,  22,  making  this  barbarous  edict  the  very  first 
expedient  instead  of  a  desperate  resort  after  all 
other  attempts  had  failed,  and  sundering  it  from 

*  WELLHAUSEN. 

J.  1:6,  8-10,  20b,  23 ;  2:ll-23a;  3:1-9,  16-20  ;  4:1-12,  [13- 
16],  18,  20a,  24-26,  27-31 ;  5:1-6:1. 

E.  1:11,  12,  15-20a,  21 ;  2:1-10;  3:10-15,  21,  22;  4:17,  19, 
305,21-23.  J.. 

Modified  by  R.  3:4,  6,  9,  21,  22  ;  4:17,  27-30. 

DILLMANN. 

J.  2:15-23a  ;  4:1-16, 19,  20a  [22,'23  transposed  from  else- 
where], 24-29a,  30,  31a,  c. 

E.  Chapter  3  (verses  2*,  4*,  7*,  8*,  17*,  22*) ;  4:17, 18,  206, 
21,395,  31&;  chapter  5  (verses  1*,  2*,  4*,  5*,  6*,  9*,  10*, 
116*,  13*,  14*,  15*,  19*,  30*,  31*-33*. 

The  verses  marked  with  an  asterisk  have  been  modified 
by  the  Redactor. 

JULICHER. 

J.  2:23a ;  4:19,  20a,  24-26 ;  3:7,  8,  16-22 ;  4:1-12,  29,  306, 
31;  5:3,  4,  6-31,  33,  33;  6:1. 

E.  1:8-13,  15-23;  3:1-31;  3:1-6,  9-14;  4:17,  18,  206;  5:1, 
2,  5. 

R.  1:20;  2:22,  25;  3:15;  4:13-16,  21-23,  27,  28,  30a. 


118  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

E's  account  of  Moses'  infancy  (2 :  i-io),  which  pre- 
supposes it  throughout.  Dillmann,  Schrader  and 
JiiHcher  avoid  these  incongruities  by  excluding  J 
from  chapter  i  altogether. 

That  Moses*  parents  are  spoken  of  indefinitely 
in  2 : 1  while  the  line  of  his  descent  is  accurately 
traced  in  6:  10  is  no  proof  of  diversity  of  authors, 
one  of  whom  had  more  exact  information  than  the 
other.  The  precise  statement  was  purposely  re- 
served for  the  supreme  crisis  in  Moses'  life,  and 
the  new  period  in  Israel's  history  thus  opened  as 
the  most  fitting  place  for  his  genealogy  in  accord- 
ance with  the  plan  of  the  Pentateuch.  Well- 
hausen  is  alone  in  the  attempt,  which  after  all  he 
confesses  to  be  impracticable,  to  sunder  2 :  i-io 
into  two  inconsistent  stories,  one  of  which  knows 
nothing  of  an  older  sister  of  Moses,  nor  of  his 
mother  being  engaged  as  nurse. 

Schrader  fancies  an  inconsistency  in  the  motive 
for  Moses'  flight  (verse  14  and  verse  15),  and  so 
assigns  2  : 1-14  to  E  and  verses  15-23^  to  J.  Dill- 
mann admits  that  no  such  inconsistency  exists,  but 
retains  the  same  division,  thus  connecting  verses 
11-14  with  verses  i-io,  to  which  verse  11  evi- 
dently alludes.  Wellhausen,  on  the  other  hand, 
connects  them  with  verses  15-23^,  and  verse  15  is 
unintelligible  without  them.  In  fact  both  are 
right;  verses  11-14  link  the  whole  chapter  to- 
gether, being  alike  firmly  bound  to  what  precedes 
and  to  what  follows;  and  so  Julicher  confesses, 
who  refers  2 :  1-22  to  E,  as  the  allusions  in  18 : 3, 
4  E  to  2:15,  22  further  require.     But  in  giving 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  119 

verse  23^  to  J,  he  severs  it  from  verse  15,  to  which 
it  manifestly  alludes. 

While  attributing  the  story  of  Moses  birth  and 
infancy  to  E  and  his  residence  in  Midian  to  J,  the 
critics  nevertheless  confess  that  J  and  E  must 
alike  have  recorded  both.  E  must  have  had  a 
section  similar  to  that  which  is  imputed  to  J,  and 
J  must  have  had  one  similar  to  that  of  E.  So 
that  after  the  narrative  has  been  sundered  in 
twain,  it  is  straightway  necessary  to  assume  that 
each  part  originally  had  just  such  a  complement 
as  has  been  severed  from  it. 

In  chapters  3-5  it  is  once  more  assumed  that  J 
and  E  had  parallel  accounts  which  have  been  in- 
terwoven in  the  most  intricate  manner.  Dillmann 
derives  chapters  3  and  5  from  E,  though  with 
modifications  from  R  in  almost  every  verse. 
Wellhausen  derives  chapter  5  and  3 :  1-9,  16-20 
from  J  and  Julicher  also  from  J  nearly  the  whole 
of  chapter  5  together  with  3:7,  8,  16-22.  Dill- 
mann assigns  3:1  to  J  in  distinction  from  2:18  E, 
because  the  Reuel  of  the  latter  is  in  the  former 
called  Jethro.  These  verses  are  alike  attributed 
to  J  by  Wellhausen  and  to  E  by  Julicher,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  name  Reuel  was  a  subsequent 
addition,  and  in  the  opinion  of  Wellhausen  Jethro 
likewise.  But  this  interchange  of  names  warrants 
no  critical  conclusions  whatever,  the  simple  ex- 
planation being  that  Reuel  is  his  proper  name,  and 
Jethro,  as  Clericus  long  since  observed,  his  official 
designation ;  so  that  there  is  no  more  mystery 


120  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

in  the  case  than  in  the  substitution  of  **  Pharaoh  " 
for  "king  of  Egypt"  (i  :  i8,  19). 

Wellhausen  admits  that  3:1-4:17  creates  the 
impression  of  "  a  piece  from  one  casting."  The 
critics,  however,  insist  that  there  is  an  incongruity 
implying  diversity  of  authorship  between  4:  19  (J) 
Moses'  return  to  Egypt  by  immediate  divine  di- 
rection and  verse  18  (E),  his  previous  resolution 
to  go  with  Jethro's  permission.  In  verses  20a, 
24-26  (J)  he  takes  his  family  with  him  evidently 
intending  to  remain,  whereas  verse  18  (E)  merely 
contemplates  his  going  alone  on  a  brief  visit  and 
chapter  18  (E)  his  wife  and  children  remained 
with  Jethro,  where  verse  2<^,  "after  he  had  sent 
her  back,"  is  regarded  as  a  harmonizing  interpola- 
tion by  R.  In  4: 17,  2Qh  (E)  "  this  rod  "  and  "  the 
signs"  (with  the  article  in  Heb.)  seem  in  their 
present  connection  to  refer  to  verses  1-9  (J)  ;  but 
the  rod  was  there  used  in  only  one  sign,  and  then 
not  as  an  instrument  but  as  the  object  wrought 
upon.  The  conclusion  is  thence  drawn  that  the 
allusion  is  not  to  verses  1-9,  but  to  some  narrative 
now  lost  in  which  a  miraculous  rod  was  given  to 
Moses  with  directions  regarding  the  signs  to  be 
wrought  by  it.  Again  the  signs  in  verses  1-9  were 
to  be  exhibited  before  the  people  (verses  i,  5), 
wihle  verse  21  (E)  speaks  of  "wonders  before 
Pharaoh,"  and  of  his  return  to  Egypt  as  yet  fu 
ture,  whereas  in  verse  2Qa  (J)  he  had  already  re- 
turned. 

Chapter  4:10-12,  recording  Moses*  reluctance 
and  God's  promise  to  be  with  his  mouth,  is  assign- 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  121 

ed  to  J.   With  this  Wellhausen  and  Jiilicher  regard 
the  appointment  of  Aaron  to  be  his  spokesman  as 
incompatible;  they  therefore  eject   verses   13-16 
as  a  later  addition,  notwithstanding  the  identical 
phrases,  ''  O,  my  Lord  "  (verses  10,  13)  and  the  co- 
incidences  in   verses    12,    15.     Consistency   then 
obliges  them  to  trace  verses  27,  28  to  Rj,  and  to 
attribute   to   the    same   source   the   insertion  of 
Aaron's  name  in  verses  29-31  (J,)  so  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  in  J's  original  account  it  was  Moses 
who  spake  to  the  people  and  performed  the  signs. 
Dillmann  sets  all  this  aside  by  pointing  out  that 
verses  13-16  do  not  annul  but  confirm  verse  12. 
God  promises  to  be  with  Moses'  mouth  as  well  as 
with  Aaron's,  and  Aaron  is  associated  with  Moses, 
not  substituted  for  him.     There  is  consequently 
no  discrepancy  and  no  need  of  assuming  an  inter- 
polation, whether  of  these  verses  or  of  verses  27, 
28,  or  an  unauthorized  insertion  of  Aaron's  name. 
But  as  Dillmann  imputes  3 :  18  to  E  (contrary  to 
Wellh.  and  Jiil.),  and  thence  infers  that  E  speaks 
of  the  elders  and  J  of  Aaron,  verses  29-3 1  are  sliced 
accordingly.     Parts   of  verses  29,  31  are  assigned 
to  E,  viz.,  "  he  gathered  all  the  elders  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel ;  .    .    .  and  they  heard  that  Jehovah 
had  visited  the  children  of  Israel  and  that  he  had 
looked  upon  their  affliction ;"  and  the  remainder 
to  J.     From  all  which  it  appears  how  easy  it  is 
for  a  critic  to  manipulate  or  sunder  the  text  in  ac- 
cordance with   a   preconceived   theory,  be   that 
what  it  may. 

The  discrepancies  alleged  in  this  chapter  are  so 


123  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

manifestly  of  the  critics*  own  making  that  it  seems 
a  needless  waste  of  words  to  refute  them.  After 
Moses  had  been  commissioned  to  deliver  Israel, 
3:  1-4:  17,  he  obtained  Jethro's  permission  to  re- 
turn to  Egypt,  ver.  18.  Whereupon  the  Lord  con- 
firms his  resolution  by  the  encouraging  informa- 
tion of  the  death  of  those  who  sought  his  life,  ver. 
19.  This  had  been  before  communicated  to  the 
reader,  2 ;  23(^,  but  Moses  did  not  know  it  until 
now.  The  explanatory  remark  iZ\2b  showing 
the  consistency  of  the  narrative  is  rejected  by 
the  critics  as  an  interpolation,  without  the  slight- 
est authority  and  contrary  to  all  reason,  for  the 
mere  sake  of  creating  a  contradiction  where  none 
exists.  The  rod,  4:  17,  as  is  plain  from  7  :  15,  is 
that  of  4:  2-4,  and  the  signs  are  those — whether 
heretofore  described  or  not — which  were  to  be 
wrought  by  its  instrumentality,  in  the  presence 
both  of  the  people  and  of  Pharaoh.  The  prelimi- 
nary statement  that  Moses  returned  to  the  land 
of  Egypt  is  made  at  the  outset,  ver.  20,  before  de- 
tailing the  occurrences  on  the  way,  just  as  the 
comprehensive  statement  is  made,  7  :  6,  that  Moses 
and  Aaron  did,  as  the  Lord  commanded  them, 
prior  to  the  detailed  narrative  which  extends 
through  this  and  the  subsequent  chapters. 

The  section  7:8-11:  10  is  acknowledged  to 
show  a  regular  progression  in  the  severity  and  ef- 
fectiveness of  the  plagues  described  until  they 
reach  their  awful  climax  in  the  death  of  the  first- 
born and  the  deliverance  of  Israel.  It  is  never- 
theless affirmed  that  it  yields  to  critical  analysis, 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  128 

and  that  by  following  suggestions  furnished  by 
the  preceding  chapters  it  can  be  separated  into 
three  constituents.  P  makes  Aaron  the  prophet 
of  Moses,  7:1,  insists  on  letting  the  children 
of  Israel  go  unconditionally,  6:  11,  7:  2,  and  de- 
clares that  Jehovah  will  lead  forth  his  people 
in  spite  of  Pharaoh's  continued  refusal,  7:5.  J 
and  E  make  Moses  the  speaker  before  the  king, 
4:  22  ;  he  only  asks  permission  to  hold  a  feast  in 
the  wilderness,  5:1,  3,  and  Pharaoh  shall  himself 
drive  the  people  out  of  his  land,  6:1.  According 
to  E.  4:  17,  but  not  J,  the  miracles  were  to  be 
wrought  by  Moses  with  his  rod. 

Guided  by  these  criteria  the  critics  resolve  the 
plagues  as  follows.*  In  P  Aaron  with  his  rod 
works  the  miracles.  These  are  conceived  of  not 
as  plagues  inflicted  on  the  Egyptians  so  much  as 
exhibitions  of  power,  with  which  the  sorcerers  vie 
with  partial  success  at  first  but  to  their  final  dis- 
comfiture. P  uses  a  fixed  form  with  regularly  re- 
curring phrases,  ''  Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  Say 
unto  Aaron  Stretch  out  thy  rod,  etc.,  that  there 
may  be,  etc.  And  they  did  so.  And  Aaron 
stretched  out  his  rod,  etc.,  and  there  was,  etc.  And 
the  magician's  did  so  with  their  enchantments, 
etc.  And  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened,  and  he 
hearkened  not  unto  them,  as  Jehovah  had  said." 

In  J  Moses  goes  to  Pharaoh  and  demands  that 

he  should  let  the  people  go  to  serve  Jehovah,  and 

threatens  him,  in  case  of  refusal,  with  a  particular 

plague  mostly  at  a  fixed  time.     This  is  inflicted 

*  For  Note  see  next  page. 


124  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

by  Jehovah  without  any  human  instrumentality. 
Thereupon  the  king  commonly  summons  Moses 
and  Aaron — the  latter  being  simply  the  com- 
panion of  Moses — and  asks  their  intercession, 
promising  to  let  the  people  go.  Moses  consents 
to  intercede,  mostly  designating  an  interval  be- 

*  WELLHAUSEN. 

p.  7:8-13,  (1)  7:19,  20o,  21e,  22,  23  (2)  8:5-7,  155,(3) 
8:16-19(6)9:8-12,  11  :  9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-18,  (2)  7  :  25,  8  :  1-4,  8-15a,  (4)  8  :  20-32,  (5) 
9  :  1-7,  (7)  9  :  13-21,  22*-25*,  26-34,  (8)  10  :  1*-11,  135,  14b, 
15^-19,  (9)  10  :  28,  29,  11  :  4-8. 

E.  (1)  7  :  17&,  20b,  21a,  b,  24,  (7)  9  :  22*-24*,  35,  (8)  10  :  12, 
13a,  14a,  15*,  20,  (9)  10  :  21-27,  11 :  1-3. 

DILLMANN. 

P.  7  :  8-13,  (1)  7  :19,  20a,  21b,  22,  (2)  8  :  5-7,  15b,  (3)  8  :  16- 
19,(6)9:8-12,11  :  9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-17a,  25,  (2)  8  :  1-4,  8-15a,  (4)  8  :  20b-22,  23b,  24, 

28b,  29a,  30-32,  (5)  9  : 1-7,  (7)  9  :  13, 17-21,  23b,  24b,  25a,  26-30, 

33,  34,  (8)  10 :  1-7,  13bc,  14b,  15a,  16-19,  (9)  10  :  28,  29, 11  :  4- 

8. 
E.  (1)  7  :  15*,  17b,  18,   20b,  21a,   23,  24  (4)  8  :  20a,  23a,  25- 

28a,  29b,  (7)  9  :  13*,  22,  23a,  24a,  25b,  31,  32,  35  (8)  10  :  8-12, 

13a,  14a,  lohc,  20  (9)  10  :  21-27,  11  :  1-3. 

R.  9:14-16. 

JULICHER. 

P.  7  :  8-13,  (1)  7  :  19,  20a,  21b,  22,  (2)  8  :  5-7,  15b,  (3)  8  :  16- 
19,  (6)  9  :  8-12, 11 :  9,  10. 

J.  (1)  7  :  14-1 7a,  (15b*,  17*),  23,  25b  (2)  8  :  1-4,  8*-14(12*) 
(4)  8  :  20-32  (22b*,  23*,  25*,  26*,  27*),  (5)  2  : 1-7,  (7)  9  :  13,  17, 
18,  23b,  24*,  25*,  26,  27*,  28*,  29*,  31-33*,  34*,  (8)  10  :  la,  3*- 
6a,  13bc,  14b,  15ac,  16*-19,  11  :  4-8. 

E.  (1)  7  :  17b,  18,  20b,  21,  24,  25a,  (7)  9  :  22,  23a,  24*,  28* 
30,  aSa,  (8)  10  :  7,  8-13a,  14a,  15b,  (9)  10  :  21-29,  11  :  1-3. 

R.  9  :  14-16,  19-21,  29b,  30,  35b,  10  :  lb,  2,  6b. 

The  figures  enclosed  in  parentlieses  represent  tlie  differ- 
ent plagues  in  tlieir  order.  (1)  blood,  (2)  frogs,  (3)  lice,  (4) 
flies,  (5)  murrain,  (6)  boils,  (7)  hail,  (8)  locusts,  (9)  darkness. 


Pkntateuchal  Analysis.  125 

forehand,  and  at  the  appointed  time  the  plague  is 
removed.  In  some  of  the  plagues  a  distmction  is 
expressly  made  between  Israel  and  Egypt. 

In  E  which  is  much  more  fragmentary  than 
the  others,  the  miracles  are  wrought  by  the  rod  of 
Moses,  and  after  particular  plagues  Pharaoh  makes 
greater  and  greater  concessions. 

Upon  this  scheme  no  one  of  the  narrators  has 
recorded  all  the  plagues.     P  only  four,  J  six,  E 
four  or  five.     All  these  unite  upon  one  (blood); 
two  on  four  (P  and  J  frogs ;  J  and  E  flies,  hail 
locusts).     Of  the  four  remaining,  two  (lice,  boils) 
are  pecuHar   to   P,  one  (murrain)  to   J,  and  one 
(darkness)  to  E.     Whence  it  is  inferred  that  these 
different  traditions  agreed  that  certain  extraordi- 
nary events  preceded  and  facilitated  the  exodus; 
but  they  were  not  agreed  as  to  what  these  events 
were      The  gravity  of  the  conclusion  makes  it  im- 
portant that  we  should  examine  with  some  care 
the  basis  upon  which  it  rests. 

It  requires  but  a  moment's  inspection  to  see 
that  the  alleged  diversities,  which  are  made  the 
criteria  of  the  different  writers,  and  are  urged  in 
justification  of  the  proposed  severance,  do  not  ex- 
ist     Thus   the   alleged   superior   prominence   of 
Aaron   in  P  is  groundless.      Precisely  the^  same 
function  is  assigned  to  him  4:  H-i^  (J)  as  in  7  : 2 
(P).     According  to   4:30  (J)  ^' Aaron  spake  the 
words  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  Moses  and 
did  the  signs''— the  very  criterion  by  which  the 
critics  propose  to  distinguish  P.     So  in  5  :  i   (E) 
Moses  and  Aaron  go  in  and  speak  to  Pharaoh. 


126  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Here,  as  in  other  passages  assigned  to  JE  where 
the  two  brothers  are  combined,  the  critics  sum- 
marily eject  ''Aaron"  from  the  text  for  no  rea- 
son but  to  adapt  it  better  to  their  hypothesis. 
Moses  was  directed,  3:18  (E),  to  take  the  elders 
with  him  to  the  king.  This  is  no  warrant,  how- 
ever, for  substituting  the  elders  for  Aaron  in  5:1, 
confirmed  as  the  latter  is  by  verses  4.  20.  It 
simply  shows  that  the  writer  was  not  painfully 
precise  in  stating  everything  in  so  many  words 
which  could  be  readily  enough  inferred  from  what 
he  had  said  previously.  Moreover  Aaron  did  not 
work  all  the  miracles  which  the  critics  ascribe  to 
P.  Not  to  speak  of  the  plague  of  the  firstborn 
(12:12)  which  was  inflicted  by  Jehovah  without 
human  agency,  the  boils  were~  produced  not  by 
Aaron's  rod,  but  by  Moses  sprinkling  ashes  to- 
ward heaven  (9:8,  10) ;  so  that  by  the  confession 
of  the  critics  the  miracles  recorded  by  the  same 
writer  need  not  all  be  wrought  by  an  absolutely 
uniform  method.  It  is  purely  arbitrary,  therefore, 
on  their  own  principles,  to  refer  9  :  22,  23,  10:  12, 
13,  21,  22  to  a  different  writer  from  7 :  19,  8 :  5,  6, 
16,  17,  where  the  expressions  are  identical  even  to 
the  remarkable  interchange  of  ''hand  "  and  "rod," 
only  the  actor  is  Moses  instead  of  Aaron.  In 
II  :io  P  ascribes  the  miracles  to  the  agency  of 
Moses  as  well  as  Aaron. 

Besides,  if  the  letter  of  7:2,  3  be  pressed,  no 
mention  is  there  made  of  Aaron  as  concerned  in 
working  miracles.  God  says  that  He  will  himself 
multiply  his  signs  and  wonders  (the  very  feature 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  127 

attributed  to  J),  while  Aaron  is  simply  to  speak 
to  Pharaoh.     Express  mention  is  made  (10:3,  8) 
(J)  of  Aaron  as  joined  with  Moses  in  speaking  to 
Pharaoh,  which,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  the 
king  was   in  the  habit  of   summoning  both  the 
brothers  to  an  interview,  makes  it  probable  that 
whenever  Moses  is  said  to  have  spoken  to  Pharaoh 
the-meaning  is  that  he  did  so  through  the  medium 
of  Aaron.     But  however  this  may  be,  if  we  accept 
the  division  made  by  the  critics,  P  never  represents 
either  Moses   or  Aaron   as   uttering   a   word  to 
Pharaoh.   A  series  of  miracles  is  wrought  with  no 
other    object    apparently   than   to    see   whether 
Aaron  can  outdo  Pharaoh's   jugglers.     It  is  re- 
peated time  after  time  that  Pharaoh's  heart  was 
hardened,  and  he  hearkened  not  unto  them.     But 
what  they  had  said  or  to  what  Pharaoh  refused  to 
listen  does  not  appear.     Jiilicher  makes  himself 
merry  over  P's  description,  which  he  Hkens  to  a 
tournament  with  its  successive  feats  at  arms,  and 
in  which  no  regard  is  had  to  time  or  place.    Moses 
and  Aaron  remain  in  the  presence  of  the  king  from 
beginning  to  end,  whether  in  the  palace  or  the 
open  air   is   not  said,  only  once  running  into   a 
neighboring  house  for  some  ashes,  the  miracles 
crowding  one  upon  another  in  quick  succession 
till  all  are  ended.     He  seems  quite  unconscious 
that  his  ridicule  really  falls  upon  the  absurd  di- 
vision which  the  critics  have  made  of  a  narrative 
that  is  perspicuous  and  well  ordered  throughout. 
The  alleged   difference  in   the  demand   made 
upon  Pharaoh  in  P  and  in  J  and  E  is  also  without 


128  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

foundation,  as  is  evident  from  what  has  just  been 
said.  P  records  no  demand  whatever  upon  Pha- 
raoh in  even  a  single  instance.  That  the  king's 
unreasonable  obstinacy  might  be  set  in  the 
strongest  light,  no  more  is  ever  asked  of  him  than 
to  let  Israel  go  for  three  days  in  the  wilderness  to 
sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  This  is  stated  fully  in  the 
first  interview  (5:1,  3),  but  commonly  in  the 
briefer  form  ''  let  my  people  go,  that  they  may 
serve  me"  (8 :  i).  Every  such  application  to  Pha- 
raoh is  without  exception  referred  either  to  J  or 
E,  and  an  attempt  made  to  establish  a  difference 
in  their  phraseology — as  though  J  said  "  serve  " 
and  E  "sacrifice,"  or  "  hold  a  feast" — which  can  only 
be  carried  through  by  assuming  that  wherever  the 
wrong  word  is  used  it  has  been  altered  by  R.  As 
no  passage  is  allowed  to  P  in  which  Moses  and 
Aaron  address  the  king  on  this  subject  there  is  no 
material  for  comparison.  The  reason  why  the 
limited  form  of  the  request  is  nowhere  found  in  P 
is  simply  because  every  paragraph  or  clause  in 
which  it  is  expressed  or  implied  is  for  that  reason 
declared  not  to  belong  to  him.  To  be  sure,  Moses 
and  Aaron  are  directed  in  P  to  speak  to  Pharaoh 
to  let  Israel  go  out  of  his  land  (6 :  11,  7:2,  comp. 
II:  10),  but  the  form  of  expression  is  precisely 
parallel  to  7:  14  J.  And  that  it  was  the  divine  in- 
tention from  the  outset  to  effect  Israel's  absolute 
release  is  as  plain  from  what  is  attributed  to  J 
and  E  (3  : 8,  10,  19,  20),  as  from  anything  contained 
in  P. 

And  that  Pharaoh,  constrained  by  God's  strong 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  129 

hand,  should  drive  Israel  out  of  his  land  (6:  i, 
JE)  is  not  inconsistent  with  P's  declaration 
(7 : 4)  that  Pharaoh  should  refuse  to  hearken,  and 
that  the  Lord  would  bring  forth  Israel  out  of 
Egypt  by  great  judgments.  JE  gives  the  solu- 
tion 3  :  19,  20.  The  design  of  the  judgments  was 
to  break  Pharaoh's  obstinacy  and  compel  his  stout 
heart  to  yield.  And  P  nowhere  affirms  that  at 
the  critical  moment  of  Israel's  departure  they  had 
failed  to  accomplish  this  end. 

The  basis  on  which  the  critics  professedly  rest 
their  analysis  thus  fails  them  at  every  point. 

The  space  devoted  to  different  plagues  varies 
considerably;  and  it  has  been  urged  that  this  in- 
dicates the  composite  character  of  the  narrative. 
But  this  argument  is  of  no  avail  for  the  critics,  for 
the  disparity  continues  after  they  have  made  their 
partition.  Murrain  (J)  and  darkness  (E)  have  in  all 
but  seven  verses  each ;  while  after  E  and  R  have 
each  had  their  share  Dillmann  still  reserves  fifteen 
verses  for  J  in  the  account  of  the  hail,  and  thir- 
teen in  that  of  the  locusts.  It  is  further  observ- 
able that  the  attendant  circumstances  and  the 
dealings  with  Pharaoh  are  assigned  to  JE,  while 
P  is  limited  to  the*  bare  record  of  the  plague  it- 
self. This  is  an  unwarranted  sundering  of  what 
belongs  together,  and  is  only  properly  intelligible 
in  connection. 

Scarcely  any  account  is  made  of  diction  in  di- 
viding this  section  ;  and,  as  it  would  appear,  with 
good  reason,  for  what  is  urged  is  meagre  enough. 
P  uses  the  term  ''  wonders  "  (7 :  3,  9,  1 1 :  9>  io)>  but 


130  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

so  does  E  (4:21);  and  "pool"  (7:  19),  which  oc- 
curs but  twice  besides  in  the  whole  Pentateuch. 
P  says  "  hearken  to,"  J  "  hearken  to  the  voice  of." 
**  Magicians,"  though  in  Genesis  used  by  E,  is  here 
ascribed  to  A.  Three  words  are  employed  to  de- 
note the  hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart,  v/hich  vary 
slightly  in  signification,  nWD  hard  or  obdurate,  pin 
stout  or  obstinate,  "122  heavy,  hard  to  move  or 
stubborn.  These  are  used  in  both  intransitive 
and  transitive  forms,  and  the  latter  with  the  Lord 
or  Pharaoh  himself  as  subjects.  Strenuous  en- 
deavours have  been  made  to  parcel  these  in  some 
distinctive  way  among  the  different  writers ;  but 
with  all  the  liberties  that  the  critics  have  allowed 
themselves,  they  have  not  been  very  successful  as 
yet. 

In  8:  15  J's  phrase  ''hardened  his  heart"  and 
P's  "hearkened  not  unto  them"  occur  together; 
and  instead  of  drawing  the  natural  conclusion 
that  one  writer  used  both  phrases  the  critics  split 
the  sentence  and  divide  it  between  J  and  P. 
Two  different  words  for  "hardening"  occur  after 
the  plague  of  hail  (9:34,  35),  one  transitive  at- 
tributing it  to  Pharaoh's  own  agency,  the  other 
intransitive.  Instead  of  admitting  that  the  same 
writer  has  here  used  both  words,  the  critics  isolate 
the  second  verse  from  its  context  and  seek  for  it 
some  other  connection.  The  same  thing  is  done 
with  10:  20,  where  the  wrong  word  occurs  for  the 
theory.  The  theory  rules,  and  the  text  is  re- 
modelled to  correspond. 

And  after  all  the  only  result  attained  is  that  J 


FENTATEUCHAL  ANALYSIS.  131 

always ,  uses  "laD,  and  yet  even  he  interchanges 
the  adjectives  "12D  and  p]n  (10:14,  19);  P  and  E 
alike  make  use  of  pin  and  that  in  both  its  transi- 
tive and  intransitive  forms ;  and  P  uses  both  pin 
and  r\1Vp.  If  two  of  these  supposititious  writers 
employ  the  same  word  to  express  this  idea,  and  one 
of  them  uses  two  distinct  words  for  the  purpose, 
why  is  it  not  quite  as  easy  to  suppose  that  the 
same  writer  has,  for  the  sake  of  varying  the  ex- 
pression of  a  thought  so  frequently  repeated,  em- 
ployed all  three  of  the  terms  ?  The  theory  neither 
explains  nor  simplifies  the  matter,  and  is  not  worth 
the  pains  that  are  taken  to  carry  it  consistently 
through. 

P  has  a  different  word  for  ''serpent"  (7:9,  10, 
12)  from  that  of  J  (4:3).  The  critics  find  here 
two  versions  of  the  same  story,  which  J  locates  in 
the  desert  and  P  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh.  In 
Dillmann's  opinion  the  latter  is  the  original  form 
of  the  incident,  while  Jiilicher  is  equally  confident 
that  the  former  is  its  proper  place.  They  are  both 
right ;  each  occurrence  was  appropriate  to  the  oc- 
casion on  which  it  is  related.  And  it  is  not  un- 
likely that  the  new  application  of  the  miracle  sug- 
gested the  altered  term,  so  that  the  ordinary  word 
for  serpent  was  replaced  by  one  less  usual,  which 
may  possibly  have  had  special  appositeness  to 
Egypt,  or  to  the  arts  of  serpent  charmers. 
Enough  is  not  known  of  the  usage  of  the  word 
to  verify  this  conjecture ;  but  it  is  more  plausible 
surely  than  the  critical  assumption  that  it  is  an 
unmeaning  characteristic  of  style. 


132  Pentateuch  AT.  Criticism. 

According  to  Knobel  and  Schrader,  P's  account 
of  the  first  plague,  the  change  of  water  to  blood, 
is  found  in  7 :  19-22.  But  if  that  be  so,  one  of  the 
discrepancies  insisted  on  between  P  and  JE  ceases 
to  exist.  It  is  said  that  P  represents  all  the  water 
in  the  land  of  Egypt  as  turned  to  blood,  while  JE 
limits  this  to  the  water  of  the  river.  But  while 
verse  19  speaks  of  streams  and  rivers  and  ponds 
and  pools  and  even  the  water  in  vessels  of  wood 
and  stone  as  converted  into  blood,  verse  20  lays 
stress  only  upon  the  water  of  the  river,  and  verse 
21  speaks  of  the  fish  dying  in  the  river  and  the 
impossibility  of  drinking  the  water  of  the  river. 
Noldeke  and  Kayser,  therefore,  assign  these  last 
two  verses  which  occur  in  the  midst  of  P's  state- 
ment to  JE,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  clause 
of  verse  20,  "  And  Moses  and  Aaron  did  so  as  the 
Lord  commanded."  Dillmann  and  Wellhausen 
do  the  same,  only  they  except  in  addition  the  last 
clause  of  verse  21,  "  And  there  was  blood  through- 
out all  the  land  of  Egypt." 

The  last  named  critics  further  undertake  to 
separate  J  from  E.  They  call  attention  to  the 
sudden  change  of  speaker  in  verse  17.  In  the  first 
clause  *'  I  "  means  Jehovah  ;  in  the  second  clause 
with  no  formal  indication  that  another  is  speaking, 
"I"  as  evidently  means  Moses.  This  is  regarded 
as  indicating  a  confusion  in  the  text  arising  from 
the  blending  of  two  accounts.  Verses  14  to  17,  as 
far  as  the  words  "Behold,  I,"  or  *' I  will  smite," 
belong  to  J,  who  attributes  the  plagues  to  the  im- 
mediate agency  of  God.     The  remainder  of  verse 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  133 

'  17  and  perhaps  verse  18  belong  to  E,  who  always 
employs  the  instrumentality  of  Moses'  rod.  E's 
account  recommences  verse  20  with  the  words, 
"  And  he  (the  pronoun  is  by  the  critics  referred 
to  Moses)  lifted  up  the  rod,"  etc.,  and  continues 
in  verse  21  as  far  as  "water  of  the  river,"  and 
finally  embraces  verses  23,  24.  Then  verse  25, 
which  speaks  of  Jehovah  smiting  the  river,  is  the 
conclusion  of  J's  account.  This  partition  by  Dill- 
mann,  from  which  Wellhausen's  varies  slightly,  is 
exceedingly  ingenious,  and  accommodated  with 
marvellous  skill  to  the  phenomena  of  these  verses. 
The  close  verbal  correspondence  between  verses 
I  yd,  18  and  20/7,  21^,  the  correspondence  again  be- 
tween verse  19  and  8:5,  and  the  divergence  be- 
tween verses  19  and  20,  seem  at  first  sight  to  rec- 
ommend it. 

But  a  moment's  reflection  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  it  cannot  be  correct,  i.  The  message  to 
Pharaoh  (verses  14-18),  the  direction  to  Aaron  to 
execute  what  had  been  announced  to  Pharaoh 
(verse  19),  and  his  doing  as  he  was  directed  (verse 
20),  belong  together,  and  are  necessary  to  complete 
one  another.  They  cannot  be  assigned  to  differ- 
ent writers  without  making  each  part  a  disconnect- 
ed fragment.  According  to  the  critics'  division 
J  gives  no  account  of  the  infliction  of  the  plague ; 
and  E's  portion  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence, 
with  no  intimation  who  is  speaking  or  to  whom 
the  words  are  addressed.  2.  The  verbal  corres- 
pondence already  remarked  upon  is  no  argument 
for  the  divisive  hypothesis,  for  it  is  at  once  ex- 


134  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

plained  if  all  is  from  the  same  writer.   The  double 
application  of  the  pronoun  "  I  "  in  verse  17  obvi- 
ously arises  from  the  fact  that  the  words  are  those 
of  Moses  (verse  16),  who  passes  from  direct  cita- 
tion of  the  language  of  Jehovah,  to  speaking  in 
his  own  person,  as  the  prophets  and  other  mes- 
sengers of  the  Most  High  so  often  do.     The  as- 
sumption that  it  is  due  to  the  Redactor's  confus- 
ing separate  sentences  imputes  a  degree  of  care- 
lessness or  stupidity  to  him  that  is  quite  incon- 
ceivable.    The  mention  of  the  rod,  so  far  from 
being  out  of  place  or  requiring  the  assumption  of 
a  different  writer,  is  just  what  verse  15  prepares 
us  to  expect.     Moses  is  there  told  to  take  in  his 
hand  the  rod  which  was  turned  to  a  serpent,  in 
order  of  course  to  use  it  in  working  the  miracle. 
This  is  particularly  perplexing  to  the  critics,  for  it 
completely  annuls  their  distinction  of  J  and  E.    It 
is  in  a  context  belonging  to  J.    It  refers  explicitly 
to  4:2,  3,  also  belonging  to  J,  and  of  which  E 
knows  nothing.     And  yet  it  implies  a  use  of  the 
rod  characteristic  of  E  and  foreign  to  J.     They 
can  only  get  rid  of  it,  as  they  rid  themselves  of 
everything  inconsistent  with  their  hypothesis,  by 
expunging  it  from  the  text  as  an  insertion  by  R. 
There  is  no  inconsistency  in  Moses  speaking  of 
smiting  the  waters,  when  in  fact  they  were  smit- 
ten by  Aaron  at  his  bidding.     Moses  simply  acts 
through  the   instrumentality  of   Aaron.     Nor   is 
there  any  want  of  agreement  between  the  com- 
mand ''  Take  thy  rod  and  stretch  out  thine  hand 
upon  the  waters  "  and  the  consequent  action,  "  he 


PeNTATEUCHAL  ilXALYSIS.  185 

lifted  up  the  rod  and  smote  the  waters."  Stretch- 
ing out  the  rod  and  smiting  with  the  rod  are  sim- 
ilarly combined  (8 :  l6,  17),  only  there  both  terms 
are  inserted  in  each  clause,  while  here  the  two 
clauses  supplement  each  other.  That  the  action 
cannot  be  severed  from  the  preceding  command 
and  assigned  to  a  different  writer  is  further  appar- 
ent because  in  that  case  there  would  be  no  de- 
tailed statement  as  in  the  parallel  instances  (8 : 6, 
17)  of  Aaron's  doing  as  he  was  directed.  Nor  is 
there  any  discrepancy  in  all  the  waters  of  Egypt 
becoming  blood,  whereas  Moses  had  simply 
spoken  to  Pharaoh  of  the  water  of  the  river.  This 
was  singled  out  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  im- 
portant ;  and  so  again  in  recording  the  fulfillment, 
which  yet  proceeds  to  add  that  there  was  blood 
throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  Lord's  smiting  the  river  involves 
a  different  conception  from  its  waters  being 
changed  to  blood  when  smitten  by  divine  direc- 
tion refutes  itself. 

The  plague  of  blood  thus  refuses  to  yield  to  the 
analysis  of  the  critics.  They  reduce  a  connected 
and  well  arranged  narrative  to  mutilated  fragments 
upon  pleas  which  will  not  bear  examination. 
With  others  of  the  plagues  they  are  less  success- 
ful still ;  notably  so  with  those  of  the  hail  and  lo- 
custs. In  fact  they  confess  themselves  that  the 
analysis  cannot  be  carried  through  :  and  the  mar- 
vellous medley  which  they  make  is  apparent  from 
the  manner  in  which  they  riddle  the  text  into  bits 
in  their  attempt  to  disentangle  J  and  E. 


136  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

One  plea  for  the  critical  partition  of  the  plagues 
remains  to  be  briefly  considered.  It  is  that  while 
there  is  an  evident  plan  and  progress  in  them  in 
various  respects,  this  is  intermittent  instead  of  be- 
ing continuous  throughout.  It  is  commonly  con- 
ceded that  there  is  a  consistent  advance  in  sever- 
ity from  first  to  last.  But  the  magicians  only  ap- 
pear in  the  ist,  2nd,  3rd  and  6th.  The  effect  on 
the  king  is  noted  in  the  2nd,  4th,  7th,  8th  and  9th. 
The  1st,  2nd  and  4th,  and  especially  the  7th  and 
8th,  are  related  in  a  diffuse  and  circumstantial  man- 
ner, while  in  other  cases  the  record  is  briefer  and 
more  scanty. 

But  the  complaint  arises  wholly  from  the  failure 
to  observe  the  scheme  of  the  whole.  The  nine 
plagues  preceding  the  tenth  and  last  are  arranged 
in  three  series  of  three  each.  In  the  first  two 
members  of  each  series  the  plague  is  preannounced 
to  Pharaoh,  the  first  beginning  each  time  with 
the  same  identical  phrase  (7  :  15,  8  :  20,  9: 13) ;  so 
the  second  more  briefly  (8:  i,  9:  i,  10:1);  in  the 
third  no  preannouncement  is  made  (8:16,  9:8, 
10  :  20).  In  the  first  three  the  magicians  use  their 
enchantments,  failing  in  the  third,  after  which  they 
make  no  further  attempt,  and  are  only  mentioned 
once  again  in  the  plague  inflicted  upon  persons, 
where  their  discomfiture  is  completed  by  their 
suffering  from  boils  like  the  rest.  From  the  first 
member  of  the  second  series  onward  a  distinction 
is  made  between  Egypt  and  Goshen,  where 
the  children  of  Israel  dwelt.  In  the  first  series 
and  again  in  the  second  the  king  sent  once  for 


Pentateuchal  Analysis.  137 

Moses  and  Aaron  to  intercede  for  him  in  that  par- 
ticular plague  which  he  found  personally  most 
distressing;  in  the  last  series  the  unparalleled 
character  of  each  is  specially  remarked,  and  the 
king  sent  for  Moses  and  Aaron  at  each  successive 
plague  with  increasing  urgency.  The  first  series 
is  regularly  brought  on  by  Aaron  with  his  rod, 
the  third  by  Moses  with  his  rod ;  in  the  second 
no  rod  is  mentioned.  Other  particulars  might  be 
noted  ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there 
is  a  regular  scheme  consistently  carried  out  from 
first  to  last,  such  as  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
the  promiscuous  blending  of  different  independent 
accounts. 

The  critics  can  say  plausible  things  in  defence 
of  their  hypothesis,  and  they  show  surprising 
adroitness  in  handling  it.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  clogged  with  insuperable  difficulties  which 
should  prevent  its  acceptance  by  thoughtful  and 
considerate  minds  who  are  not  captivated  by  brill- 
iant novelties,  and  who  are  not  willing  to  surren- 
der the  truth  of  the  sacred  history  and  the  firm 
basis  on  which  it  rests,  until  some  good  reason  can 
be  given  for  so  doing. 


>^'' 


Syracuse,  N.    y 
Stockton,  Colif. 


nuF 


w 


